Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
30 January 2011
20:2690795#1
Mr Watkins,please tell us more about this bill please.?
Guest 660- Registered: 14 Mar 2008
- Posts: 3,205
30 January 2011
20:3390797#2
It means what we used to do,you can do on your own minus any money!
If you knew what I know,we would both be in trouble!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
30 January 2011
20:3690798#3
more or less right john.
efficiency savings can be made hence the shared services thing, not enough as i see it though.
we all know that cuts will have to be made.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
30 January 2011
20:3890801#4
I am waiting to see what is said about this one before I have my say.I do have that bill in front of me.,well part of it.
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
30 January 2011
20:3990803#5
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
30 January 2011
20:3990804#6
is there a cure for it as it sounds rather nasty.
Unregistered User
30 January 2011
20:4290808#7
And more John with no money.
Vic,
Abolition of Standards Board,
Changes in plannning laws.
General power of competence. i.e. you can now start up companies & other structures that allow you more scope to make local decisions.
More info. on transfer of assets & local communities taking them over.
Moving more to councillor led rather than paid official having majority of powers.
Option to vote for a directly elected mayor i.e. Boris style.
Those are just a few changes on offer.
Watty
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
30 January 2011
20:4590812#8
ray
you seem to have a sadistic streak in you, 21 pages indeed.
no doubt it covered rules on morris dancing.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
30 January 2011
20:4890813#9
howard,which one is morris,dont tell me he's the second on the left thats sidney.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
30 January 2011
20:4990814#10
As you said Mr Watkins that is just a few of them,I am not saying it is all bad because it is not,But lets just pull one of them out of the bag. Moving more to the councillor led rather than paid official having majorty of powers,you have that power now,just look at your own planning dept for one,the Councillors let the officers do what they think is right and the cllrs just sit there and agree with it all,you have the power but do not use it.
Guest 660- Registered: 14 Mar 2008
- Posts: 3,205
30 January 2011
20:5090815#11
No Brian thats who on the left watt is on the right
If you knew what I know,we would both be in trouble!
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
30 January 2011
20:5190816#12
john,dont no but i bet howrd does.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
30 January 2011
20:5290817#13
nice one brian.
paul
the last two that you mention:
i have a feeling that paid officers that are there 5 days a week full time will always run rings round councillors that go to a meeting straight from work with no time to read up on all the issues.
directly elected mayors would only apply to cities and large towns.
Unregistered User
30 January 2011
20:5990818#14
Howard most Leaders , cabinet members can put in as much time as C/E', officers etc.
I currently do at least 4 days a week with irregular hours and travelling to different parts of the county/region & London.
It goes with the position. It would be more but there is life away from politics.
Sue N. would have done the same as a Cabinet member and Nigel is constantly on the move.
Watty
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
30 January 2011
21:0090819#15
Then the bill goes on to say"Transfer of Assets" Would I be right in thinking that all the paintings you have locked away for years and never seen could now be sold off.? and maybe the funding from them could keep our public toilets open.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
30 January 2011
21:4290822#16
The localism bill was briefly presented in This Is Kent online recently, and I think there was a meeting about a week or so ago in St. Mary's Parish for the public.
It seems to be a Tory success move, as it is a bases for introducing more local administration and management of finances, and more local decision-making. Something I too have been advocating since I joined the Forum.
As for the planning decisions of DDC, which Vic mentioned, we have Tory Charlie Elphicke MP making valid points and doing something to represent and uphold the opinion of the great public at large!
Hopefully, an agreement can be reached that can modify planning so that we only get new streets edified when the local people need them, including our future generations.
I think many people would be happy if DDC was prepared to take the planning issue for Whitfield and Deal up again, and give it proper thought, also in view of the public's opinions. But at least Mr. Elphicke is doing something that gives us hope.
Tonight I shall start reading Ray Newsam's link on the localism bill.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
31 January 2011
07:5890834#17
Vic
The Planning Committee members all take their responsibility seriously and if we think what the officers want to do is wrong, then we say so and do not agree with them.
Do you think the whole DDC operation will change because you change the Planning officers and Councillors ?
Planning applications are governed by planning laws, if we go against those laws, we can be in serious trouble and if an application is refused unfairly, or do not follow the correct procedure, it will be appealed against and can then cost the Council thousands of pounds - many thousands of pounds.
It would be irresponsible to do the things you suggest sometimes.
Roger
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
31 January 2011
23:5090916#18
To be honest the Localism Bill strikes me as
A) a stirrers charter - you will get every disenchanted boo boy and girl trying to rake up signatures for mandatory referendum, at significant cost the the local authority further depleting the already depleted coffers
B) a way for local authorities to shut down services or fob them off onto local community organisations and charities for a pittance in monetary compensation ultimately leading to a significant degradation in service quality and coverage; or worse pass them to the private sector to charge you for something you paid for out of your council tax
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
1 February 2011
00:3790920#19
Referendums should be quite inexpensive, Ross. If one considers all the coloured printed paper that La Friends Pizzeria can deliver in Dover on a regular bases, then it can't be too expensive to deliver a sheet of referendum paper now and then in all post-boxes either, with a few explanations on what is to be voted on.
As for the local admistration, not to forget that over the coming 4 years, Gov. will be granting a lot less mony to the local Councils, meaning a reduction of about 40% Council spending. So the localism bill should provide also for more local finances to remain withing the County and Districts.
No doubt the details are still being worked on in this aspect, but it is a great idea. It is the bases to economic recovery, meaning we'll be less dependent on central decisions made in London when it comes to local admistration. Obviously we'll have to give the local Councils and the Government more time to work out the details, but they are certainly preparing a winning card here.
No-one will see me campaigning against this!
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
1 February 2011
06:2390921#20
alex,referendums are pointless and expencive.to be honest its all in the question which is rather confuseing and misleading.